fine perceptions, but endowed with rather too hearty a scorn of fools as well as of folly. Circumstances had tempted him in early youth to give free utterance to his contempt, and occasionally, moreover, to forget that courtesy is due even to vulgar antagonists. In later life, the shyness, due to a sensitive nature, was mistaken, as is so often the case, for supercilious pride, and the unwillingness to wear his heart on his sleeve for coldness and want of sympathy. Such men have to be content with scanty appreciation from the outside, and Lockhart had to pass for an incarnation of the cynical variety of Toryism. Mr. Lang, it is to be hoped, has appealed successfully from the erroneous judgment hitherto too often passed. There is, however, one point upon which I am forced to think that he has been a little too lenient. It concerns Lockhart's controversy1 in regard to the causes of Scott's financial difficulties. In the "Life of Scott" Lockhart had the very difficult task of accounting for his father-in-law's misfortunes, and it was of course to be expected that the other persons concerned should not be satisfied with the statement. If, indeed, he was not quite impartial, it is impossible to blame him severely for dealing a little too tenderly with the character which he so loved and honored. Mr. Lang defends him, too, upon the ground that he had in his first edition told the story honestly, although, in the heat of contro versy, he incautiously accepted a position attributed to him by his antagonists. Instead of replying, as he might have replied, "You are only repeating my own admissions," he tried to withdraw from the admissions which had virtually made. There is, I think, much truth in this, though I cannot discuss the point. But I also think it impossible to read Lockhart's pamphlet without regret, not only because, as Mr. Lang of course agrees, its insolent tone he 1 "The Ballantyne Humbug Handled," etc. (1839), is in answer to a "refutation" of Lockhart's statements in the "Life" by Ballantyne's trustees. They made a "reply," to which Lockhart gave no answer. betrays excessive irritation, but because it is really, if unintentionally, unjust to other persons concerned. The interest of the question consists chiefly in its bearing upon Scott's character, though Mr. Lang's main concern in the matter is of course with Lockhart. Having lately had occasion to go over the controversy with a view to an article in the "Dictionary of National Biography," I venture to say something of Scott's share in the matter. The shortest plan is to tell what seems to me to be the true story, from which it may incidentally appear how far it was slurred or softened in Lockhart's hands. That, however, is for me a matter of minor importance. First, I must notice one difficulty. Mr. Lang observes that he is not an adept in financial matters, and is unable to unravel the mysteries of complex accounts dealing with elaborate commercial transactions. I am certainly not more competent than he; but I do not think that any profound insight into the accounts is really necessary. We need only take for granted one little device which, when explained, as one's commercial friends are always glad to do, is rather of charming simplicity than mysterious complication. Scott wishes to borrow money. He gets the loan the more easily because he can say Constable will also be responsible: "he will repay you if I can't." The flction is that Constable owes Scott a debt already, and that Scott can therefore hand over this debt to his own creditors. Meanwhile, the fact is that no such debt exists. Constable admits it because he accepts a reciprocal service from Scott. He borrows money, stating that Scott will be responsible. The credit of each therefore helps the other. But now, if either is unable to pay, the other has to pay the debts of both. This was what actually happened. Constable failed, and Scott found himself suddenly liable not only for his own debts, but for some 40,000l. raised by Constable. That, as everybody agrees, was the immediate cause of the catastrophe. The question is, who was to blame; and especially why Scott, who had been making an unprecedented income by his pen, and who had an independent income of his own, should have been borrowing large sums, and borrowing them in this undesirable fashion? That, again, is in general terms answered by obvious facts. Scott wanted money because he had set up as a landed proprietor, built a fine house, collected curiosities, and indulged in expensive hospitality. To understand the position, however, so as to apportion the responsibility, we have to look a little more closely at the previous history, which, though indicated, is mixed up with other matters in Lockhart's "Life." Scott, then, had formed a characteristic connection-characteristic because there never was a man who took greater satisfaction in helping a poor friend. To be a staunch patron of his followers and a staunch adherent of his leaders was an essential article in his ideal of manly duty, and his whole life is a series of such services. He had thus taken up James Ballantyne. They had met when they were both schoolboys and Scott already an accomplished spinner of boyish stories. They had met again at a club which Scott frequented in his early days at the bar. A little later Ballantyne set up as a printer, and was publishing a paper at Kelso. Scott then employed Ballantyne to print some of his early ballads. He showed the result as a creditable specimen of his friend's skill, and then suggested that Ballantyne should come to Edinburgh to take advantage of his good report. Ballantyne accordingly set up the "Border Press" in 1802. The press speedily obtained a good character, and Scott, now beginning his literary career, was able to bring a steady flow of custom to his friend. So far the scheme was carried out successfully, and the printing business not only succeeded for the time, but attained permanent prosperity. It survived the ruin of Scott's fortunes and enabled Ballantyne ultimately to provide for his family. There was unfortunately one difficulty. Ballantyne had not sufficient capital for his trade, and was forced from the first to carry it on partly with borrowed money. How far he was competent as a man of business was afterwards matter of argument; but there can be no doubt that he was, as he himself admits, always embarrassed, and that he was regarded with distrust in business circles. Scott had lent him money, but on a renewed application for help took (in 1805) a most unfortunate step. He thought it imprudent to lend, but consented to become an unavowed partner in the business. Ballantyne gave employment in the firm to his brother John, a shifty, harum-scarum person, and the two Ballantynes became Scott's trusted agents and courtiers. Lockhart has drawn portraits of the Ballantynes so vivid that, after making allowance for some unintentional caricature, it is impossible to doubt that they are sketches from the life by a very keen observer. The nicknames "Rigdum Funnidos" and "Aldiborontiphoscophornio" are sufficient indications of Scott's own view of their characters. He saw and enjoyed their absurdities and weaknesses, but, in his tolerant fashion, liked them none the worse. It is all very well to have friends who tickle your sense of humor; but in such cases it is desirable to maintain a certain distance, and not to become responsible for their foibles. Scott, however, felt bound to stick by his clients through thick and thin. They came to be the intermediaries between him and the outside world. He had to be approached through his little court; and as they had their own interests-and John at least was given to roundabout intrigues-Scott's own reputation suffered from this indefinite and secret connection. Murray and Longman, instead of making a direct bargain with the author himself, had to negotiate through these inferior auxiliaries, and were far from pleased with their manœuvres. There can be no doubt, too, that, as Lockhart says, the connection led Scott into practising concealments of various kinds in a way hardly worthy of his character. He had begun by communi cating all his early works to his friends est indignation by an article proving before publication. After this connection was formed he indulged in mystification. The great secret as to the "Waverley Novels" was in all probability really due to this. He had been annoyed by hearing that publishers thought that his name was becoming "too cheap." The later poems had not equalled the circulation of their predecessors. Scott began to look at the matter from the publisher's as well as from the author's point of view, and probably thought that it might be as well not to risk injury to his fame by an unsuccessful attempt in a new line. He would at least wait till success or failure was decided. Once begun, the mystery was rather attractive than otherwise, and it amused him to keep back the revelation. The whole system, however, put Scott in an unsatisfactory position, which soon became more marked. now In 1809 Scott took another step which made the situation far more serious. He was already connected in various ways with the great Constable, who had paid what was thought a fancy price for "Marmion," had published Scott's great edition of Dryden, and was following it by the edition of Swift. Constable was also publisher of the Edinburgh Review, to which Scott had contributed many articles. But Scott set up the firm of "John Ballantyne & Co." in direct competition with Constable. Jeffrey's review of "Marmion" in the Edinburgh and the offence taken by Scott at the language of Constable's partner are suggested as the special occasions of the breach. But there were other and deeper reasons. Scott's political zeal was at this time becoming militant. The beginning of the Peninsular war had stimulated party passions. It roused the Tories, who could now claim to be supporters of a patriotic uprising against military despotism. It alarmed the Whigs, who saw a boundless vista of new continental complications, debt and taxation. The Edinburgh Review had become unequivocably Whiggish, and just at this time excited Scott's warm the utter hopelessness of this new military venture. He at once took up most energetically the scheme for starting the Quarterly Review as an antidote to the poison of the Edinburgh. He wrote articles for it himself, enlisted recruits on all sides, and soon threw down the gauntlet to his antagonist. The new firm would enable him to garrison Edinburgh and organize what literary faculty there might be in the Tory party. It would act in alliance with Murray, the publisher of the Quarterly, and it would publish an Edinburgh Annuat Register, which should enable him to expound the true version of contemporary history. He has thus concocted, as he tells Morritt (January, 1809), “a grand scheme of opposition to the proud critics of Edinburgh." The Whigs should no longer have it in their power to suppress wholesome literature. Besides defending the good cause, he would be able to help needy friends. Southey, for example, was to be the main historian of the Register. And then there were more purely literary purposes in which Scott was greatly interested. He had already edited some valuable historical collections, and had further enterprises in hand. Here, unluckily, was a weak point. Although no one was ever better able than Scott to please the public taste, he was a curiously bad judge of their taste in literature generally. He judged other men's likings, as we must all more or less do, by his own. What interested him would interest them. He was fascinated by local ballads and the old antiquarian researches which threw light upon ancient manners and customs. The public was equally fas cinated by the vivid imagery generated in his imagination when supplied with such materials; and he seems to have inferred that it must share his taste for the raw material itself. Acting upon this principle and upon his ardent belief in the talents of his friends, he undertook to publish masses of unsalable literature. A huge dead-weight of stock presently accumulated in the warehouses of "John Ballantyne & Co.” A ponderous "History of the Culdees," the conduct of the Ballantynes. They written by a valued friend; a heavy had not looked things fairly in the face, volume of "Tixall poetry," which cost and had kept both themselves and him 2,000l.; an edition of Beaumont and in darkness. He reproaches them, but Fletcher, undertaken by a wandering with good temper and with friendly asGerman whom he most generously pro- surances. The misfortune, indeed, aptected till the poor man's death; Miss pears to have been that he did not comSeward's "Poems," a burden which he plain enough. He was too good-natured, had incurred from rather excessive civil- or felt too strongly his own responsiity to one of the early recognizers of bility for the misfortunes of the firm, his talent; and other failures, encum- to break off all connection with busibered the new firm. The new Register ness and make himself once for all initself caused a loss of over 1,000l. a dependent. year; and, considering that the Ballantynes had insufficient capital and did not enjoy a good reputation for solvency, it is no wonder that the venture was in grievous difficulties after three or four years. By 1813 they were at the verge of bankruptcy. The cause, as James Ballantyne admitted, was clear enough: "beginning in debt, without capital, and always heavily in advance." Magnificent schemes with insufficient means are a very obvious short cut to ruin; and the only wonder seems to be that Scott managed to escape at the time. Scott, however, showed abundant energy as well buoyancy and courage. He was obliged to consent to make an application to the rival against whom he had been, as he said, preparing his bombs. The personal quarrel had speedily blown over, and Constable now agreed to look into the books. It appeared that Ballantyne & Co. were liable for about 15,000l. within the next year, and that all their assets, if they could be realized, would be about equal to their liabilities. As, however, the times were hard, it was necessary to get some temporary help. Scott applied to the Duke of Buccleuch, as the chief of his clan, and the duke's guarantee enabled him to raise the nec essary sum. But, further, it was decided that the publishing business must be given up altogether. The printing was substantially a sound business, and might still be carried on. Scott accepted the position. He set most vigorously to work to extricate himself, and, after a sharp struggle, with apparently complete success. He complained, and it seems quite justly, of as The publishing business, however, was finally abandoned. John Ballantyne became an auctioneer, though Scott continued to employ him in negotiations with publishers. The masses of unsalable stock were gradually disposed of in various bargains for the sale of "Waverley Novels," which began to appear in 1814; and it might be hoped that the whole disastrous muddle was finally at an end. John Ballantyne believed, in fact, that this result had been achieved. He says, in a memorandum quoted by Lockhart, that, owing to the "consummate wisdom and resolution" of the first partner, the business had been finally wound up with a balance of 1,000l. to the good. Scott himself supposed that the toils were fairly broken. He was before long able to return the bond to the Duke of Buccleuch, and thought that the embarrassments were finally over, and that he had a right to spend freely the large income which was now beginning to flow in from the "Waverley Novels." Even at the worst, it must be added, Scott could still say that no man could ultimately be a loser by him. He had an independent income and unencumbered property. A bankruptcy would have been serious and discreditable, but all his creditors would have been ultimately paid. This, then, was the end of the first act of the drama. If John Ballantyne's statement could be accepted, the result would be that Scott had finally got rid of his publishing encumbrances. He had engaged in dangerous speculations, and could not be acquitted of rashness. But he had saved himself and his part his depth. ners, and had never got entirely beyond the debts had increased to about 46,The printing business ap- 000l. This debt, increased by the addipears to have been bringing in at a tional liability caused by Constable's later time a profit of nearly 2,000l. a failure, brought about Scott's ruin; and year, and involved no speculative risks. the problem remains-who was responUnfortunately, there was a sequel. sible? On one point, of course, there Lockhart tells us that John Ballantyne can be no dispute. If Scott had shown was under a delusion, and that, when the same prudence during the later pethe publishing was abandoned, the riod as he did during the first crisis, he printing business, which had got inex- would have freed himself from all diffitricably mixed up with it, took over culty. He chose, that is, to spend his debts to the amount of 10,000l. It is income when he ought to have been not easy to make out how far this paying off his debts. He had, it is true, statement is admitted by the other side. his landed estate to show for it, and alAnyhow, such a debt might easily have though, as Lockhart tells us, he had been extinguished by a man who was been induced to pay extravagant soon making 8,000l. a year by his nov- prices, he might take this to be a good els, besides having an independent in- investment. But, in point of fact, he come. To explain the catastrophe seems to have been curiously unaware which followed, we must first observe that he was incurring any risk; and the the facts which came out in Lockhart's settlement of Abbotsford upon his eldcontroversy with Ballantyne's trustees. est son in 1825, which, if valid, put the In 1816 James Ballantyne wished to property beyond the reach of his credmarry, and the young woman's rela- itors, would have been inexcusable tions said that he ought to show that if any such alarm had occurred to he was clear of debt. Hereupon Scott him. agreed that Ballantyne should give up for a time all his interest in the business, and should henceforth be employed as a manager with a fixed salary of 4001. a year. During the following six years, therefore, "Ballantyne & Co." meant really Scott himself. He was the sole proprietor, and course, a right to do with it whatever he pleased. In 1822, however, a new arrangement was made. Scott agreed to take Ballantyne again into partnership in the business of which he speaks as "now so flourishing." The profits were henceforth to be equally divided, Scott's influence and custom being regarded as equivalent to Ballantyne's labor as a manager. The partners were only to draw moderate sums, so that the debt might be extinguished. This debt, however, implies a remarkable state of things. Scott, in a document called a "missive letter," which shows his thorough familiarity with the facts, agrees that he is to be personally responsible for the bills due at that time by the firm. They then amounted to something like 30,000l. Between this time and the crash at the end of 1825 had. of Now Lockhart's "Life" goes to suggest the theory against which Ballantyne's trustees really protested. The immediate cause, according to this was Ballantyne's shiftlessness and incapacity. Ballantyne was, says Lockhart, an excellent reader of proofs, and made many valuable literary suggestions to his great friend. But he was also a muddle-headed and lazy man of business, who never looked into his accounts or made out a genuine balancesheet. When bills became due he met them by drawing fresh bills, and never troubled himself about the ultimate result. Therefore, it is to be inferred. that unfortunate nest-egg of debt which was left when the publishing business was wound up continued to accumulate by a kind of automatic process. If I never look into my affairs, allow all my subordinates to go their own way without check, and al ways pay my debts by fresh borrowing, it is very easy to understand that my liabilities will increase, apparently of themselves. Meanwhile, one has to ask, what was Scott doing? Lockhart admits, or rather asserts, this to be a |